Friday, October 21, 2016



Image result for giuseppe tomasi Lampedusa quotationsImage result for giuseppe tomasi Lampedusa quotations

The nove I; Gattopardo (The leopard) by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa is one of my favorites, in my dream I was reading it again and therefore have I have chosen these quotes- they tell much, for LENR too.



Dear Ed,

I have received now:

Obviously, this was announced on my Blog as soon as it appeared a few days ago., however now I will ask you an essential question.
You repeatedly told that you are very discontented with the LENR community, too many researchers have original, unfounded ideas and are ignoring the basic known facts on which your theory is firmly based.
OK, still true in part- and consider the opposition of the LANR people, Swartz and Hagelstein- however my impression based on discussions is that actually your Theory is popular, accepted- you have many admirers and followers. 
I am an admirer but not a follower just this is not relevant for what I am asking you now.
In my best years when I lead the research lab from OLTCHIM we have before starting any Project, "What will we get if this is a Total, 100% Success?"

Suppose everybody starts using your ideas, your Theory becomes the Standard, you are becoming the WWLENR Leader, get the task, power, funding and all the means necessary to organize the LENR research activity worldwide- can you describe the global scenario and make prediction for the development of the Field? Please eliminate modesty from the equation. Thank you for a constructive answer!


Thanks Peter. What you describe about my ideas being followed and sometimes accepted is reassuring but not always obvious.  Part of the problem results because LENR itself is not accepted. Nevertheless, the kind of people and attitudes in the LENR field are different from those I experienced when I worked at LANL and was involved with other fields of science.  Also, as is becoming apparent, many people who have a more conventional approach to the discussion of science are becoming interested but do not contribute on CMNS, which is the focus of my frustration.  As these people get involved and bring to bear the successful kind of interaction other fields of science experience, the field will move ahead more rapidly.  I think what we are seeing is an exhaustion of patience with the failed ideas based on imagination and quantum physics.  Clearly, a different approach is required.  Finally, people have nothing to lose by taking my approach.  So, maybe I only need to be patient, which is not one of my natural quantities.


Third Parties in Rossi v. IH Court Case File Joint Motion to Dismiss Counter Claims Against Them

E-Cat novita di ottobre 2016


I have been thinking over the material I read in Krivit's book and at 1st thought I could do an easy review of it but am now wondering just what the book really tells me and what I can retell from it.
In the broader sense, it is the book of a person (Krivit) who has built up a lot of knowledge of CF, LENR & LENR+ and has come to understand the areas of major interest and critical contention (especially the apparent incorrect assumptions of D + D => fusion event).  Krivit has always impressed me as one of the sharpest minds in the CF/LENRs field and a tenacious researcher who was and is intent on getting to a 'truth' even at the expense of personal relationships with those he deals with along the way.
The book delves into the personalities, actions and convictions of the major players of the era (particularly from Pons & Fleischmann  on)  in a warts and all fashion which in some ways comes across as unfortunate as there is a constant critical air that permeates the writing.
Few people written about get much praise as there is quite a bit of criticism for many of the most famous participants. There aren't many heros. In fact, some reputations appear to be' trashed' by claims made in the book. I have chosen not to name anyone who gets criticised as an interested reader can find out for themselves.
The praise in this book mostly goes to Widom and Larsen (notably Larsen). The book paints a strong picture of their LENRS theory being the only salvation of the field in that the W & L theory is said to have been accepted by even the greatest critics of the whole Cold Fusion argument (including Robert L Park and others). However these former critics are said to have only relented when they accepted W & L's case for neutron capture vs a Fusion event.
One should end the book with a strong conviction that LENR & LENR+ are proven and real phenomena but that strong doubts still exist as to current levels of scalability of the effect. However, there is also a strong emphasis on great progress finally starting to be made even if Andrea Rossi's eCat claims take a hammering under the Krivit blowtorch of investigation and detailed analysis.
In retrospect, this book is a valuable and informative read but I will say that the book by Brett Holverstott about Randall MIlls & the Hydrino discovery, was such a pleasure to read that any subsequent book about new science read by my myself (such as Krivit's book), had a very very hard act to follow.
I will probably buy the next book in the set. I do see great value in Steven Krivit's expertise and knowledge of the subject.


Safe new storage method could be key to future of hydrogen-powered vehicles
Date:October 20, 2016
Source:University of Oxford
Hydrogen is often described as the fuel of the future, particularly when applied to hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles. One of the main obstacles facing this technology -- a potential solution to future sustainable transport -- has been the lack of a lightweight, safe on-board hydrogen storage material. A major new discovery has shown that hydrocarbon wax rapidly releases large amounts of hydrogen when activated with catalysts and microwaves.
Designing the future Internet
Date:October 20, 2016
Source:Rutgers University
This century, our world will be flooded with hundreds of billions of smartphones, gadgets, sensors and other smart objects connected to the internet. New research is at the forefront of efforts to redesign the internet to handle the enormous increase in traffic.Wow Explanation of What Happens When You Experience a Wow Moment


  1. Ed Storms has never taken reactor meltdown seriously in his formulation of LENR theory. But over time, reactor meltdown has been shown to be a major factor in the development of LENR technology by multiple LENR experimenters.

    People who have successfully produced a gainful LENR reaction have first started out with a succession of reactor meltdowns. Rossi has stated that in the beginning of his development, he melted down hundreds of his reactors.

    ME356 has also explained how he melted down his reactors until he figured out how to moderate the LENR reaction.

    Recently, another new and sucessful Rossi replicator has melted down multiple reactors until he figured out how to control the reaction.

    And let us not forget Alexander Parkhomov who in the beginning accumulated a bushel of melted reactor fragments of his first reactor attempts.

    If Ed Storms does not want to deal with a major behavioral characteristic of the LENR development cycle; if Ed wants to ignore what is happening during reactor meltdown; how does Ed's theories advance the understanding of the Rossi LENR+ method.

    Even Pd/D technology has seen electrolytic LENR systems melt down, but Ed's theories cannot even explain this condition.

    This basic question that Ed must answer in this theory is what produces the LENR reaction, how does this reaction gets out of control and how is the reaction moderated to a steady state condition when this supercritical condition sets in.

  2. Regarding the above article on the book by Steve Krivit;
    It puzzles me that Doug M. can make the statement
    "Krivit has always impressed me as one of the sharpest minds in the CF/LENRs field and a tenacious researcher who was and is intent on getting to a 'truth' even at the expense of personal relationships with those he deals with along the way."
    and then constantly argue against Krivits assessment of the Rossi ecat over the last five years, particularly in view of the fact that Krivit had been to Italy, been to Rossi's 'laboratory', spoken in length to Mr Rossi, seen the ecat supposedly working, taken considerable videos of the event to review later, and then after all this, came to the conclusion the ecat was doing nothing out of the ordinary.
    He then went on to produce and post a video detailing his very clear and valid reasons for coming to the conclusion he did.
    If Doug's assessment of Krivit was that he was a bumbling incompetent fool then I can understand his constant argument over Krivit's asssement. But the constant argument does not seem at all consistent with his above statement that,
    "Krivit has always impressed me as one of the sharpest minds in the CF/LENRs field and a tenacious researcher who was and is intent on getting to a 'truth'".
    Why not just accept that Krivits conclusion on the Rossi 'magic' is and always was an accurate assessment?

    1. Rossi's technical approach has been replicated by at least three experimenters that I know about and maybe more that I don't know about. These replications provide grounds to question the opinion of the Rossi detractors. It also provides grounds to keep an open mind about the efficacy of the nickel/lithium/hydrogen LENR reaction that we call LENR+


    2. Krivit's assessment of Rossi's ecat was made on the basis of the original version which had allegedly been heating a factory for two years prior to the demonstration being done for Krivit to see.
      On that basis he had every expectation that he would see a working reactor then and there, working to the claimed specifications at the time he saw it, not some years down the track in a different guise, or by some other person who might be claiming to have replicated it. He gave his honest appraisal of it and in his expert opinion, it was not working as per the claims of Mr Rossi. In fact I think his opinion was that it was not working at all. That's what he reported, and Doug M. is reasonable enough to concede that Krivit is one of the more knowledgeable people in the area of lenr, so one would expect his assessment to carry more weight than say, the opinion of a casual remote onlooker such as the numerous people who have denigrated his opinion over the years since.
      I will point out the obvious that today, many years later, IH are claiming the exact same thing and yet still some people refuse to believe that consistent with Krivit's assessment, the current assessment of IH is in all probability, true.

      Whether or not others might have later claimed to produce excess energy from replicating later versions of the ecat is besides the point of whether or not Mr Rossi managed to show an ecat to Krivit which was actually working. Krivit's assesment was that what he saw was not working when he saw it and that's what he reported.
      Some have made the claim that the reaction does not always occur and that it apparently wasn't at the time Steve Krivit saw it, but usually did. If that was the case it should have been obvious to Mr Rossi that on that occasion it was not working, in much the same way that it was not working when demonstrated to Mats Lewan, but in both cases, in fact in all cases, Mr Rossi has claimed the device was stable and working to specifications. I think that indicates that there is no discernible difference between occasions when the ecat is working and when it is not. The only difference is in the eye of the beholder. That's what magic is all about; being able to fool the beholder. Krivit was not fooled, thus on that occasion the device was apparently not working. Others seeing the same demonstration may have concluded it was working. Magic tricks are like that.

      I will also point out that none of the claimed replications by others have been verified as being high COP reactions by any third parties. Until they are, they are of similar value to all the claims of Mr Rossi.

    3. dear Pweet,
      if you want explanations write to my ddress

    4. Thanks Peter. I would be interested to read it, but it would be better if you posted it here for all to read.
      It will be wasted if it's only for my 'enlightenment'.
      Hoping to hear,

    5. I am not asking anything without serious reasons and complete justification. it is not asbout Rossi in this case

  3. Frank Acland
    October 21, 2016 at 9:38 PM
    Dear Andrea,

    How many QuarkX reactors have you and your team made so far?

    Kind regards,

    Frank Acland

    Andrea Rossi
    October 21, 2016 at 10:30 PM
    Frank Acland:
    Since March 2016, when the first prototype has been made, we produced several tens of them, most of them burnt before having resistent prototypes. Presently we are testing three of them, but one is winning the competition.
    Now we focus on the winner to get the Sigma 5.
    Warm Regards,

  4. Pweet,
    Your opening remark claiming my opposition to Krivit's case against Rossi plus your claim this occurred over 5 years is a complete fabrication. It is not true at all. Your recall of my comments about Rossi obviously relates back to the blog site called ecat news and I am saying that your recall is seriously flawed, so flawed in fact that it must be deliberate.

    The only interpretations I can place on your intentions are you are trolling. You are putting up a false premise without a shred of evidence nor any realistic way to refute it.

    So, am not interested in taking your bait.